News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on On blockchains and why secure ledgers don't require proof-of-work. Parent comment

Re:On blockchains and why secure ledgers don't require proof... by rocqua on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @02:20PM (#15646575)
There is value in a blockchain beyond a ledger of currency, and some of that value still remains when using a centralized service.

Specifically, if you want to offer a service where you can guarantee non-repudiation a centralized blockchain is a great solution. By non-repudiation, in the scenario of a double-spend whomever signed both transactions is 'on the hook' for both. This doesn't work for currency but works for systems where it is sufficient to prove your servicer screwed you over.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:On blockchains and why secure ledgers don't require proof... by runeks on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @03:19PM (#15647138)
Where does the blockchain come in? As long as you have a signature from the central authority over two conflicting transactions, you can prove it has defrauded you.

Blockchains specifically solve decentralized consensus. It’s expensive and slow compared to using a central authority, but the advantage is that the system doesn’t suffer from a central point of failure.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:On blockchains and why secure ledgers don't require proof... by dozzie on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @06:22PM (#15648661)
> Blockchains specifically solve decentralized consensus.

Wrong. Blockchains specifically timestamp documents. Consensus is a different problem and blockchains don't even touch that.

[ Parent | on HN ]